Mulligan v. Otis Elevator Company

• Decision Date: 27 September 1963
• Docket Number: No. 14138.,14138.
• Parties: Daniel C. MULLIGAN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

322 F.2d 633 (1963)

Daniel C. MULLIGAN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14138.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

September 27, 1963.

Floyd F. Cook, Daniel J. Harrigan, Cook, Bayliff, Mahoney & Martin, Kokomo, Ind., for plaintiff-appellant.

Gustav H. Dongus, Indianapolis, Ind., for defendant-appellee, Fauvre, Dongus, Ging & Gemmer, Indianapolis, Ind., of counsel.

Before SCHNACKENBERG, KNOCH and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.

Daniel C. Mulligan, Jr., plaintiff, has appealed from a judgment of the district court which was entered upon a directed verdict on the motion of Otis Elevator Company, a New Jersey corporation, defendant. These proceedings took place at the close of plaintiff's case.

By his action, plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injuries which the evidence shows he sustained while working as an employee of Marhoefer Packing Company. On August 21, 1959, in the performance of his duties, he came to the third floor entrance to a freight elevator which had been originally installed on January 28, 1928, by defendant, pursuant to a contract between it and Kuhner Packing Company, which was the predecessor in interest of Marhoefer.

As originally installed the elevator was designed so that it could be operated only by a person on the elevator. On May 26, 1931, defendant also installed on the wall of each landing double button controls, thereby permitting operation of the elevator from the outside as well as from the inside of the car. Thus it could be moved from another floor by pressing and holding the "up" or "down" wall button. However, defendant retained in the hoistway entrance to the elevator certain wooden gates which were installed on March 23, 1928, such gates being 5½ feet high, thus leaving an opening of 18 inches between the top of the gate on the third floor and the top of the hoistway opening into the elevator. There was no gate on the elevator itself. At that time this was an acceptable design according to the American Standard Safety Code, which sets minimum safety standards for the elevator industry. To move the elevator car all three hoistway landing gates had to be closed and constant pressure maintained on the button, otherwise the car would stop.

These gates, which operated by hand, could not be opened while the car was in motion or unless the car was stopped within one inch of the threshold landing. The elevator car was not self-leveling, and to level the car at any floor it was necessary to push or "jog" the up-and-down buttons until the car floor was level with the hoistway floor.

Prior to the date of the accident Kuhner or Marhoefer replaced the wooden hoistway gate with a metal gate made of diamond wire mesh supported by a pipe frame. This gate was made and installed by Kuhner or Marhoefer as a result of a regulation by the United States Department of Agriculture requiring wooden equipment to be replaced by metal for sanitary reasons and followed the design of the wooden gate with the same height of 5½ feet.

An expert witness for plaintiff, John A. Miller, testified that in his opinion the elevator was dangerous with the double-button controls and an opening above the gate, for the reason that somebody at a remote button station could operate the elevator while someone at another floor was attempting to operate or level the elevator, although all the gates would be closed. He also expressed the opinion that certain precautions could have been taken, such as extending the gate to the full height of the opening, painting a leveling mark on the elevator car, installing an automatic leveling system, or installing a warning bell with a timer device. However, on cross-examination, Miller testified that some fifty-seven recognized elevator companies currently in business, including defendant, had made thousands of the same type elevators with 5½ foot gates during the period including 1931. He further testified that such a gate met the requirements of the rule contained in the 1925 edition of the American Standard Safety Code...